The Bits of Freedom Ruling: The First Step in Private DSA Enforcement

In this blog post, authors Mattijs Baneke, Daniel Mandrescu & Sam Wolters (The Platform Law Blog) discuss the first successful collective civil claim brought under the Digital Services Act (DSA) in the Netherlands, delivered by the Amsterdam District Court on October 2, 2025. The case involved Bits of Freedom (BoF), a Dutch public interest group focusing on internet governance, which prevailed in a request for preliminary relief against Meta concerning how the company displays different recommender systems across Facebook and Instagram and enables users to interact with these systems. The ruling received considerable media attention as the Court ordered Meta to make several significant changes to both platforms’ interfaces while dismissing Meta’s arguments about technical difficulties, offering important insights into what may become a new stream of private enforcement action in digital markets.

The authors explain the factual background of the dispute, which centered on how Meta allows users to switch between recommender systems—algorithms responsible for sorting and ranking information presented to users in their feeds. Instagram and Facebook provide both profiling recommender systems (algorithm-driven and tailored based on user data and inferred interests) and non-profiling systems (organizing posts chronologically, alphabetically, or by simple parameters). While both platforms use profiling systems by default on their Homepages, comments sections, and Reels sections, and Meta technically enabled users to switch to non-profiling systems, the manner in which this was implemented and functioned in practice raised compliance concerns with the DSA, leading to BoF’s claim.

The authors outline the relevant DSA requirements that formed the basis of the dispute. Article 25 requires platform interfaces to be designed without manipulating, deceiving, or materially distorting users’ ability to make informed choices, including provisions aimed at preventing dark patterns. Article 27 requires platforms to clearly explain recommender system criteria and allow users to switch systems in a “directly and easily accessible” section when multiple systems exist. Additionally, very large online platforms (VLOPs) like Facebook and Instagram must offer at least one non-profiling recommender system under Article 38, with the option to choose such systems being “directly accessible” from where recommendations are made. These provisions aim to protect user choice and prevent practices that distort informed decision-making.

BoF’s claims alleged that Meta violated the DSA by making it difficult for users to choose non-profiling recommender systems in violation of Articles 27(3) and 38, automatically resetting systems back to profiling defaults when users switched pages, closed the app, or logged off in violation of Article 25, and presenting users who chose non-profiling systems with technically and functionally inferior interfaces also violating Article 25. BoF requested six specific orders with two-week compliance deadlines, including forbidding Meta from resetting users’ chosen systems, creating easy persistent switching mechanisms, making change mechanisms directly accessible, marking sections as “Profiled” when profiling systems are active, publishing relative parameter importance in transparency materials, and including pop-ups informing users about default profiling and switching options. BoF also requested penalty payments of EUR 250,000 per day up to EUR 100 million for non-compliance. The Court ruled in favor of BoF on the first two claims while declining to rule on the third, though as a preliminary relief application, the Court assessed likelihood of success rather than conducting full fact-finding, meaning the main proceedings could reach different conclusions.

CONTINUE READING…